The EU's REACH

US Ambassador to the European Union C. Boyden Gray sounds an international trade alarm in the WSJ ;

The fundamental flaw of Reach — which stands for the Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals — is that it is not carefully tailored to address possible harms, and its potentially enormous costs are not offset by enough clearly identifiable health benefits. Reach would require producers and importers of chemicals and products containing chemicals that are manufactured in or imported into the EU in quantities over one metric ton per year — approximately 30,000 substances — to register them with a new EU agency in Finland, and to provide extensive information on their properties, uses and handling.

While this might seem unobjectionable, some of Reach's key provisions will apply to chemicals to which there is no human exposure — and thus no possibility of harm. At the same time, the proposal exempts certain highly toxic chemicals where there is serious human exposure and much known existing harm. The latter group includes chemicals such as gasoline and diesel fuels — which, without an exemption, would likely be blacklisted by Reach...

These factors explain why virtually every non-EU country with a chemicals industry has joined the U.S. in voicing serious concerns about Reach. This "coalition of the excluded" includes South Africa, which is worried that Reach will cripple the mining industry in some of the poorest parts of the developing world. At the other end of the spectrum are sophisticated high-tech producers in South Korea, India, Japan and Israel.

More analysis from the Competitive Enterprise Institute;

Currently on the horizon is the proposed EU Chemicals Policy, which represents what will be perhaps the most expansive regulation of the chemical industry ever. Known as REACH—which stands for registration, authorization, and evaluation of chemicals—this directive is likely to cost society billions of dollars, reduce innovation, and limit U.S. access to EU markets. Its protectionist effects are expected to trigger World Trade Organization (WTO) disputes. Meanwhile, the benefits of the proposal are likely to be small given that it attempts to reduce the effects of trace levels of chemicals, which have produced little documented adverse effects on public health.

The EU chemicals policy would employ the so-called precautionary principle by requiring companies to prove that their products are safe before their introduction into commerce. Currently, government officials bear the burden of proof and must prove a product unsafe before removing it from the market. REACH would reverse this burden, demanding that firms conduct extensive tests to demonstrate product safety. Since manufacturers can’t prove anything is 100 percent safe, this policy will likely produce arbitrary bans of many relatively safe substances and discourage innovation.